Read the original post: she was sued for DOWNLOADING. It's not said she's
the one who put those files in the first place and there is no mention
anywhere that the files were made available for other users. But since you
still think I'm pro file-sharing despite what I posted, maybe you just
have
a problem with reading...
>
> bwalker wrote:
>
> > " No, I
> > don't think the kid got off easy and I don't think your info of "tens
of
> > thousands per song" has any credibility (Come on, you download 1 LP
and
you
> > have to pay $100,000? Even the RIAA isn't that much of thief).
>
> That kid wasn't downloading, she was providing content on the web for
others to
> download. The figure I'm quoting comes from the Boston Globe article I
read
> and mentioned figures as high as $150,000 per song -- I was actually
> underestimating. We're not talking about some guy downloading an mp3,
we're
> talking about people who make illicit copies of artists' work and make
it
> available on the web for others to download, sometimes even charging a
fee.
> I'm not saying everyone who does this is automatically going to get
fined
the
> maximum amount, I'm sure it will be pretty much case by case. But I'm
also
> sure that the intent is to reduce the ridiculous amount of theft and
make
it
> quite clear, even to people like you who can't seem to figure it out
from
your
> own moral training, that theft is wrong and punishable. And not to put
too
> fine a point on it, but I'm not the one you have to convince.
>
|
